2015 (4) TMI 1048 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) - income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined under sec. 115JB - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - Hon ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT has been pleased to hold that where the income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined by legal fiction namely the book profits under sec. 115JB of the Act and the income of the assessee is assessed under sec. 115JB of the Act and not under the normal provisions the tax is paid on the income assessed under sec. 115JB of the Act concealment of income would have no role to play and would not lead to tax evasion therefore penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of the disallowances or additions made under the regular provisions. Thus we hold that the Learned CIT(Appeals) in the present case has rightly deleted the penalty levied on the basis of assessment framed under normal provisions keeping in mind that income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined under sec. 115JB of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court.
2. Justification for imposing penalty on disallowance of fixed assets written off.
3. Dispute regarding concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessee.
4. Application of legal fiction in assessing income under sec. 115JB of the Act and its impact on penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue challenged the first appellate order which deleted the penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Learned AR argued that the issue was similar to a decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., where it was held that penalty cannot be levied when the income computed under normal provisions is less than the income determined under sec. 115JB of the Act.

2. The Learned DR contended that the penalty was justified due to concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee regarding the disallowance of fixed assets written off amounting to &8377; 44,68,170.

3. The Learned AR rebutted by stating that the assessee had prepared books of account and financial statements in compliance with the Companies Act and accounting standards. The profit and loss account clearly disclosed the fixed assets written off, indicating no intention to conceal income. The penalty was deleted by the Learned CIT(Appeals) as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

4. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., emphasizing that when income assessed under sec. 115JB of the Act is lower than the normal procedure, concealment of income does not lead to tax evasion. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed based on additions made under regular provisions. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the Learned CIT(Appeals) as the income computed normally was less than the income determined under sec. 115JB of the Act.

5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision to delete the penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate order based on the legal principles established by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the legal reasoning behind the decision to delete the penalty imposed under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.